|
2020 Organisation Update
|
| roturn |
Posted on 11-08-2020 09:12
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
The regular season is over and important offseason decisions are soon to come.
With the change from PCM15 to PCM18 different rider types suddenly became more valuable, others went down the rankings. This had been the same with previous game version changes (e.g. Gesink, Madrazo to name popular ones).
Here I will give you some information, that surely is important for you to know, when making decisions this offseason.
Facts for the 2020 Season
Game Version
PCM18
Stage Design Changes
Those changes are tried to be done as many times as possible and as good as possible. Yet we know, there will be cases again, where a stage still wasn`t ideal. We try to reduce this as good as possible.
- Hill Stages becoem more hilly cutting out the automatic H/M ratio, which did tend towards climbers too often. Should solve the puncheur issue some managers/riders were impacted.
- Time Trial Stages become more flat, short ones less corners. This should help to make the results more fair and less random or too much towards climbers.
- Cobbles are getting variety. Not just 5* cobbles making it a bit more dynamic.
- Sprinter Stages will see more wide roads and less corners in the final kilometers. Due to the amount of sprinter stages on the calendar, this might not work for every stage but we give our best to do this as good as possible.
OVL/RD/Wages
- OVL is looked at, RD are impacted by that obviously as well.
- That said, to change the balance a bit towards how PCM18 works different to PCM15 there will be a few formula changes for the wages, which come into play for renewals. Riders, that have had a poor season or highly average when supposed to do better stat wise, might accept less wage than before.
That said, more than the underperformance factor comes into play in this formula, so keep in mind, renewals have requests from riders, which often are pretty high, which doesn`t say a lot and then there are wages, he will accept or offers, he will directly fully deny if going too low. This system remains the same.
- Also there are formulas that define an underperforming rider, so it doesn`t need to match your definition to 100% and neither does need the amount of wage savings in the end, which again is lots of formula based.
The renewals system in general isn`t getting changed a lot, so don`t expect it to be hugely different.
Stat Gains for post 2020
- I still need to look into those 1-2 new stat gain choices and in case a new one is coming into play with the next season, it will be posted into the stat gain file/thread once being there.
- Main issue is to see if those new choices bring a new and good element into the game, which for example can`t be acchieved with a combination of already existing choices.
Calendar Design
- Still looking into potential changes in bands or C2HC system etc. So nothing decided yet but following some thoughts.
- One reason why those bands are needed, is to avoid having the top rider racing in every single suited race for him. So a system without bands won`t be implemented. But maybe it can be widened with more choices etc.
- C2HC similar case. The CT division is pretty small usually. When going for full freedom without a strict C2HC for everyone, the races would again become very empty in parts. Also it would make it too easy then to become a very one-dimensional team and still dominate. With a strict C2HC a more balanced approach can be rewarded. Also it`s just 60rd at the moment, though consideration is possible to reduce the amount of race days in C2HC making it a bit more free to chose from C2/C1/HC. |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 11-08-2020 09:48
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
This is absolutely what was missing last offseason, good to see this!
Also nice to see the problems can be solved with almost invisible changes to the stages.
Keeping the bands is a good decision in my opinion, it was a good system.
Only saddened by underperforming riders getting a pay cut in the one year Waeytens actually does a decent job 
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| Croatia14 |
Posted on 11-08-2020 10:30
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 9099
Joined: 13-03-2013
PCM$: 2100.00
|
Good idea with this post and most of the stuff proposed. But not changing the ovl-formula while staying on the same game just doesn't make sense and is the nail in the coffin for me.
|
| |
|
|
| hillis91 |
Posted on 11-08-2020 10:37
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5897
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 1500.00
|
Great idea, love to see it 
I was one of the managers getting hit with the Hills curse this season, so it's great to see that it will be taken care of "behind the scenes" before next year.
|
| |
|
|
| redordead |
Posted on 11-08-2020 11:07
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4881
Joined: 18-10-2017
PCM$: 200.00
|
Hopefully there is a nice mix of hilly races for both types of puncheurs. Those that are good climbers and those who aren't.
I still think looking at the OVL is a must. At least for sprinters. Wider roads and less corners are fine, but they won't solve the issue that breakaways seemed to be too often successful. Also hilly sprinters don't have enough suitable RD's to justify their high OVL.
"I am a cyclist, I may not be the best, but that is what I strive to be. I may never get there, but I will never quit trying." - Tadej Pogačar
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 11-08-2020 11:28
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
The OVL basically is looked at. It just doesn`t change the OVL/RD itself but instead balances it via the wage for those.
Points per Wage wise the sprinters aren`t even that bad. Actually even riders like Coquard or Swift, who had bad seasons.
Coquard/Swift were better than Dombrowski or Phinney for example. Also Lecuisinier, Gesink, weren`t that far ahead!
This will balance even more with the changes that are now made already in the wage area as Points per Wage should go up for sprinters while remaining same for climbers.
Add the hill stage changes and riders such as Demare, Kump, Van Stayen etc. should also do better again as they got hit by missing mountain stat same as pure puncheurs.
The system I have implemented now can check for those kind of issues after every season, so can adjust year for year a bit, which always is handy when going to a new version later on immediately as well but also after a season in the same version.
So while you think OVL/RD is the only way to make it more balanced, it isn`t as the wage itself also has impact there and it`s adjusted.
I am open for discussions regarding this topic of course. So feel free to convince me if you think, this wasn`t enough yet and why e.g. RD is needed to be changed as well. |
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 11-08-2020 11:55
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7257
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
OVL
I agree with redordead that the OVL should be looked at. We know quite well what stats are more important in PCM18 than in PCM15, so it should also be reflected in the OVL. For example Acceleration should not feature so heavy in the calculations anymore.
Solely having riders with a too high OVL asking for less due to underperformance is not enough imo. The OVL gives an idea on how much a rider is valued by the game, which helps when deciding on what wage we should offer. We don't really know what counts as underperforming.
Also if we know that certain rider types are worse than what their current OVL tells us, it would be fair to also give them more race days. I don't really see a reason not to.
Calendar
Some good changes already seem to be implemented, I just want to mention that there should be some more options in PT for cobblers with good hill stats. This season Tom David could only ride a single hilly cobbled classic. I think at least RVV should also be rated hilly.
Calendar Design
roturn wrote:
- One reason why those bands are needed, is to avoid having the top rider racing in every single suited race for him. So a system without bands won`t be implemented. But maybe it can be widened with more choices etc.
I don't really understand this argument. Why should top riders not ride races suited to them? The amount of races they can ride is already limited by their race days.
I think abolishing the bands would make planning much more tactical. With the bands managers are much more forced to send riders to specific races.
If the bands are kept, please at least don't have them the way that they have to be filled up to their capacity like in PTHC. That only leads to teams having unfair disadvantages because of missing out on bands that suit their focus. |
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 11-08-2020 12:03
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Seems like a sensible package of decisions. I like that the admins are erring on the side of caution regarding changes that directly affect the game balance. It's easy to overreact to issues and create a yo-yo effect.
I have a question about how to interpret "cutting out the automatic H/M ratio".
That sounds like you found a way to somehow disable the new dynamic H/M system on a stage level? Or do you simply mean that you will create more hilly stages that exclusively feature short climbs, which within the new system automatically favors H more? I guess it's the latter, but just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
And I guess this is mostly about hilly stages in tours right? Changing the profile type of classics like LBL, Lombardy, AGR, Fleche would be weird and in my opinion the results of those classics were actually fine this year. This season's Ginanni is a good example of a pure puncheur of sub-top quality and he did exactly what you would expect from that type of rider: in AGR he managed to finish at the back of the winning group, in LBL and Fleche he finished in the second group and in Lombardy he lost minutes. That seems consistent with real life to me.
His problem this MG season was simply that there's a very limited number of races that get decided in AGR-type terrain. And if I understand correctly, that's exactly what you plan to address.
Final question: I'm wondering what your plan is for dealing with the subset of this season's underachievers who will most likely go back to their normal performance level because of calendar/stage design changes. Will those also get a significantly reduced wage?
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 14:41
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| AbhishekLFC |
Posted on 11-08-2020 12:08
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11677
Joined: 27-07-2015
PCM$: 1861.50
|
Bikex wrote:
OVL
I agree with redordead that the OVL should be looked at. We know quite well what stats are more important in PCM18 than in PCM15, so it should also be reflected in the OVL. For example Acceleration should not feature so heavy in the calculations anymore.
Solely having riders with a too high OVL asking for less due to underperformance is not enough imo. The OVL gives an idea on how much a rider is valued by the game, which helps when deciding on what wage we should offer. We don't really know what counts as underperforming.
Also if we know that certain rider types are worse than what their current OVL tells us, it would be fair to also give them more race days. I don't really see a reason not to.
This is almost exactly what I was going to write. The OVL should be the absolute indicator of how a rider is expected to perform, and it should factor all (or at least most) factors for a rider type. Underperformance itself is also a subjective factor. Like roturn mentioned, the OVL to RD formula itself is fine, but keeping the OVLs mostly same, especially for those impacted by the game change would be unfair, and also somewhat confusing.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 11-08-2020 12:12
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
DubbelDekker wrote:
I have a question about how to interpret "cutting out the automatic H/M ratio".
That sounds like you found a way to somehow disable the new dynamic H/M system on a stage level? Or do you simply mean that you will create more hilly stages that exclusively feature short climbs, which within the new system automatically favors H more? I guess it's the latter, but just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
And I guess this is mostly about hilly stages in tours right? Changing the profile type of classics like LBL, Lombardy, AGR, Fleche would be weird and in my opinion the results of those classics were actually fine this year. This season's Ginanni is a good example of a pure puncheur of sub-top quality and he did exactly what you would expect from that type of rider: in AGR he managed to finish at the back of the winning group, in LBL and Fleche he finished in the second group and in Lombardy he lost minutes. That seems consistent with real life to me.
His problem this MG season was simply that there's a very limited number of races that get decided in AGR-type terrain. And if I understand correctly, that's exactly what you plan to address.
Final question: I'm wondering what your plan is for dealing with the subset of this season's underachievers who will most likely go back to their normal performance level because of calendar/stage design changes. Will those also get a significantly reduced wage?
1) as you expected, the stages itself will be changed/re-created to be clearly hilly.
2) lots of classics indeed did work out good. Those likely remain same. Some need small adjustments. It all depends what the automatic H/M says and if this is okay or too much towards MO.
3) The formulas that check for underacchievers can come into play year for year. So if those riders, e.g. puncheurs will have a strong season now due to the stage design changes and from underacchievers go towards overperformers or just regular as expected kind of scorers, then next season, they no longer go into the "underacchiever" formula and will obviously go a bit higher again due to their positive results.
This season the changes are made with care, so that a pure puncheur, who we expect to increase a lot by stage design, won`t go too low for example. Also the formulas are taking quite a bit into account, so it`s not like a fix factor for all underacchievers. |
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 11-08-2020 12:13
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Bikex wrote:
OVL
I agree with redordead that the OVL should be looked at. We know quite well what stats are more important in PCM18 than in PCM15, so it should also be reflected in the OVL. For example Acceleration should not feature so heavy in the calculations anymore.
Solely having riders with a too high OVL asking for less due to underperformance is not enough imo. The OVL gives an idea on how much a rider is valued by the game, which helps when deciding on what wage we should offer. We don't really know what counts as underperforming.
Also if we know that certain rider types are worse than what their current OVL tells us, it would be fair to also give them more race days. I don't really see a reason not to.
I would also prefer that we keep trying to accurately model OVL to expected rider performance instead of keeping OVL calculations mostly static and fixing everything with wage request modifiers for certain types of riders. The simple reason for this is that OVL is visible to everyone and these modifiers are not. Plus there's the added benefit of the effect on RD as well.
Let's have both subtle OVL formula corrections and wage request modifiers.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 11-08-2020 12:17
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
I am going to look into OVL as quite a few of you think it`s much needed. Will come back once I have a bigger picture and some ideas. |
| |
|
|
| DubbelDekker |
Posted on 11-08-2020 12:30
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
roturn wrote:
1) as you expected, the stages itself will be changed/re-created to be clearly hilly.
2) lots of classics indeed did work out good. Those likely remain same. Some need small adjustments. It all depends what the automatic H/M says and if this is okay or too much towards MO.
3) The formulas that check for underacchievers can come into play year for year. So if those riders, e.g. puncheurs will have a strong season now due to the stage design changes and from underacchievers go towards overperformers or just regular as expected kind of scorers, then next season, they no longer go into the "underacchiever" formula and will obviously go a bit higher again due to their positive results.
This season the changes are made with care, so that a pure puncheur, who we expect to increase a lot by stage design, won`t go too low for example. Also the formulas are taking quite a bit into account, so it`s not like a fix factor for all underacchievers.
1) Perfect
2) Cool
3) Ok, I guess I'm fine with them overachieving a bit for a season. In the long term it automatically gets fixed indeed.
|
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 11-08-2020 12:40
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
Will restrict myself from going into this off-season debate. As my solution will still be changing DB and Skill upgrade system - clearly something that is not in the mind of most admins and few managers.
My only input will be: When you "think" some hilly races was fine, do you consider that everyone send punchers, believing that they would perform.
What will happen to pure punchers when we start sending our Climbers/Hydrid to puncher races.
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 11-08-2020 12:57
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
Personally I would love to see the new stat gains introduced, I feel like when we added the Cancellara stat gain option were talking about it for a good 3 years or so before it went in and by that point arguable the best option to fill it, Tom Bohli, had reached max and was no longer eligible for it despite showing good TT and Cobble results in his youth.
I think the more options we have and the more diverse riders we can create the better the MG will be, even if we need to tweak certain ones a little stronger or weaker to make sure nothing is more overpowered or underutilised, I'd rather se them introduced and adjusted than be discussed for seasons without any progress.
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 11-08-2020 13:06
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Tamijo wrote:
Will restrict myself from going into this off-season debate. As my solution will still be changing DB and Skill upgrade system - clearly something that is not in the mind of most admins and few managers.
My only input will be: When you "think" some hilly races was fine, do you consider that everyone send punchers, believing that they would perform.
What will happen to pure punchers when we start sending our Climbers/Hydrid to puncher races.
Not sure I get this fully.
e.g. there were races where riders such as Claeys, Di Maggio fought for the win.
So clearly a race with H/M ratio set to 0 basically.
And also in PT there were races, where e.g. Ginanni performed, so H/M was set to 0. Most of the times there were still lots of hybrid riders at the start e.g. Buchmann, Olivier, Keinath, Formolo and so on, who then worked less efficient as pure hill riders.
So I guess the startlists already were rather combined with both rider types and quite regularly also with couple of pure climbers. |
| |
|
|
| Tamijo |
Posted on 11-08-2020 13:12
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7406
Joined: 14-07-2015
PCM$: 599.00
|
Ok - no problem then
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 11-08-2020 13:17
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Just to get things straight:
Can we expect changes to the stat gains for this current season? I see I have gotten a PM concerning stat gains. Just to be sure which sheet is the correct one. You link to a specific one - is that the final sheet for this season, or is it still being tampered with?
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 11-08-2020 13:18
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Regarding an OVL change, which potentially could come, it would basically change the whole DB in between +1 to -2 in comparison to their old OVL.
In this test having a higher OVL would be riders with less acc, e.g. climbers that are doing better in PCM18 than with PCM15 such as Madrazo, Tenorio, Ratiy, Nibali and so on.
Being at the bottom of this list pure puncheurs with high acc such as Lutsenko/Mohoric but also riders such as Bobridge is impacted.
Sprinters in general go down a bit.
Do you think, such change would be the one needed?
Rider wise the kind of stageracer/climbers going up and the puncheurs going down make sense regarding the rankings.
Sprinters are always difficult but would work kind of decent as well this way. |
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 11-08-2020 13:24
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
SotD wrote:
Just to get things straight:
Can we expect changes to the stat gains for this current season? I see I have gotten a PM concerning stat gains. Just to be sure which sheet is the correct one. You link to a specific one - is that the final sheet for this season, or is it still being tampered with?
This season, which are sent out, still use the old stat gain file.
Changes won`t come before after next season, which then would be made public before the season in the stat gain thread. |
| |
|
